Part 2, an attack on creationism

[rocketman]

I adopted her through the Department of Human Services solely because this is the only life I have and I wanted to accomplish something significant and positive with it. A Jewish tradition is that by saving a single human life we save the entire world. Being her mom is very, very hard. I work for a non-profit and the funnest thing about my job is that I get paid to help people.

Awesome.

 

[roli]

I know that this post is somewhat weak, but taken with the other one, I think I provide a pretty complete argument. This is an old post from another place, but I like it enough to bring it over here.

A CRITIQUE OF CREATIONISM​

This post will cover New Earth Creationism (by far the most fun, like shooting fish in a barrel), Theistic Evolution (completely harmless, but not rational). I will also provide all the evidence of evolution that creationists ask for (transitional fossils and, observed evolution, etc...) and correct myths spread by creationists today in another post.

I hope ya'll enjoy it, and I hope a few of you once again take the time to read through the entire post and share your thoughts on it.

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM​

Young Earth Creationism is the belief in a literal interpretation of the creation myth found in Genesis; Young Earth Creationists also typically regard the entire Bible as true. It is hard to dispute the evidence for Young Earth Creationism because it is hard to FIND evidence for it; most of what you find on the topic is criticisms of Evolution or misinterpretation of science. After a bit of searching I did discover a site that treats Young Earth Creationism theory (makes predictions that can be disproven). (Evidence for Creation) If anyone finds something else please show me, I was disappointed to not find more. I’m going to skip over anything that is a criticism of evolution, this post is going to focus on evidence FOR creationism, not evidence against evolution.

“Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.”

Searching Google I found out a couple things. First off Dr. Thomas Barnes did not have a real doctorate in physics; it was an honorary degree from a Christian school, Hardin Simmons University. I doubt he taught physics at UTEP with that. (Thomas Barnes (creationist)) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. As for his theory, the “Doctor” does not produce any evidence that the rate of decrease is exponential. In fact the earths magnetic field is not constant, looking at geological evidence it can be shown that the field increases and decreases over time. There is no evidence of any exponential trend. (Earths Magnetic Field) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

“The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.”

I almost feel sorry for Young Earth creationists when it comes to the flood. Seeing them try to defend it is sad, I can imagine how frustrating it must be for them.

There are many flood myths in many cultures, floods are a scary thing, and they happen almost everywhere on earth. It’s natural for myths to center around natural disasters, and there’s really nothing surprising about most cultures having a story about a terrifying flood at some point.

I have no Idea who Henry Voss on M.E Clark are, their research couldn’t have been very impressive though, google doesn’t know who they are either. There’s really not too else much I can say about this, the quote is vague but sounds scientific (until it uses the word “prove”, you don’t prove anything in science). So I think I’ll use this as an excuse to very quickly talk about Noah’s Ark

Note every species could possibly have fit in the ark, the amount of food needed to keep them alive would have been staggering, most of the species would have died out from not being in the correct climate and lastly, how the hell did all the marsupials end up in Australia? There, a very quick criticism of Noah’s ark, I could go into more detail, but I don’t see much point. Back to the creationist arguments.

“Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.”

There is actually a name for this argument; it’s called “The Bunny Blunder”. It assumes that rates of population growth have been constant through all of history as has the rate of death from disease. I’ll admit I’m terrible with math, so I’m probably the worst person to counter this argument. Instead of saying anything else about it I’ll just link a couple sites that give a full rebuttal. (The Bunny Blunder) and (NCSE Resource)

“Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.”

This Assumes that helium never escapes the atmosphere, and besides I thought they claimed the earth was only 6,000 years old or was it 4500? I suppose they were hoping we’d forget for the moment.

“Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data.13 The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator14. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space.15 This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.”

These are getting easier and easier to find answers to. We know the rate at which the universe is expanding; in fact that’s how we know how old the universe is. The expanding universe does not support Young Earth Creationism, it doest exactly the opposite.

That’s about it for young earth Creationism, I will answer the other arguments on that page in my next post.

THEISTIC EVOLUTION​

This is a more moderate creationist belief, and it’s probably held by many of you who will read this. It’s the belief that a supreme being had a guiding hand in evolution and the design of the universe. It’s very difficult to debate because it isn’t much of a scientific theory. Basically it says “yep, evolution is right, but God helped out”. Many also believe that God kick started the whole process by creating the first life. I have two issues with this. The first is “The God of the Gaps” and the second is Occam’s Razor.

THE GOD OF THE GAPS

God is retreating, at least according to this belief, many religious people say things like “Well, we don’t know how the universe was made, or where the laws of Physics came from, so God must have done it” this doesn’t make any sense. There is no reason to fill gaps in scientific knowledge with God. We learn more about the universe every day and our knowledge is constantly expanding. The entire purpose of science is to find answers to what we don't know.

OCCAM’S RAZOR

Why would God decide to work through the process of evolution? Is he hiding? The simplest solution tends to be the best one. Evolution explains why life in this world looks the way it does, and does a great job of it. No one can prove that there isn’t a divine hand behind evolution, but there is no evidence that there is.

Once again, if you have any questions, would like to challenge me, or provide some other evidence for creationism, I'd love to hear it, I probably won't agree with you, but I'm always up for hearing new things.

God is hiding from you and all those who could expose him,you are brilliant and have just stumbled upon the greatest discovery of mankind.

If you were to look in places where there is ample evidence supporting creation and the fact that many scientific discoveries came from the bible ,you may find something outside your bias view.
If you want, I can refer you to several sights were creation scientists display there evidence that will blow you away.
My question is, why have I not recognised any of the sights you mention.

 

[Autodidact]

God is hiding from you and all those who could expose him,you are brilliant and have just stumbled upon the greatest discovery of mankind.

If you were to look in places where there is ample evidence supporting creation and the fact that many scientific discoveries came from the bible ,you may find something outside your bias view.
If you want, I can refer you to several sights were creation scientists display there evidence that will blow you away.
My question is, why have I not recognised any of the sights you mention.

Really? Please share. What scientific discoveries came from the bible? What evidence do "creation scientists" have that will blow me away? Please specify.

 

[roli]

Really? Please share. What scientific discoveries came from the bible? What evidence do "creation scientists" have that will blow me away? Please specify.

If your really interested in finding answers to this age old debate, here you go all kinds of answers defending and supporting creation
Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Evolution, Dinosaurs, and the Bible.
Welcome to CEM Online
Creation Evidence
Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Creation/Evolution/Dinosaurs/Genesis/etc Article Database

If you really want to discuss a particular topic ,then let me know, but I can tell you right now ,this is more than likely just going to be an endless journey ,I show you and you show me ,i will attempt one subject to see how it goes ,but I won't invest all my waking hours trying to prove anything to you.
God proves himself to those who are diligently looking ,not to those who are just out to
I can say that if all the evidence did point to favor creation ,I can well imagine that skeptics would find somethingelse to use to debunk or question God and creation, and it would be an endless pursuit of debate .
Jesus never wasted his time proving to his skeptics the fossil records or life in other galaxies.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

So I got all caught up and now I have 14 new posts to respond to.

Be patient.. I will get to them.

Thanks!

 

[Zeno]

I can say that if all the evidence did point to favor creation ,I can well imagine that skeptics would find somethingelse to use to debunk or question God and creation, and it would be an endless pursuit of debate .

This assumption is absolutely horrifying. What you must understand is that no one is looking at fossils with the intent of debunking God. Archaeologists (many of them believers) go out and observe, hypothesize, and use reliable historical evidence to draw a conclusion.

There is a key difference here and that is when YOU search for evidence, you already know what you are looking for (evidence supporting creation), when scientists observe, they have no idea what they are looking for and form their hypothesis AFTER they make the observations.

Anyone who makes their hypothesis before looking at the evidence can cherry pick and play with statistics enough to the point where they will go to bed at night comforted in their correctness. It's all very comforting and very convenient, but that doesn't mean it is true.

If you want real world examples of this just take a look at numerologists, mentalists, faith healers, dowsers, astrologists, or all the people that take Nostradamus's predictions seriously. If science used the methods of these groups, it would not work.

 

[roli]

This assumption is absolutely horrifying. What you must understand is that no one is looking at fossils with the intent of debunking God. Archaeologists (many of them believers) go out and observe, hypothesize, and use reliable historical evidence to draw a conclusion.

Believers who are scientists do by nature what they are trained in, but name some who profess evolution as their end result.
I said ,skeptics , often look for anything to debunk the creation account ,give them proof of one thing ,they want another, and that is ok , that's what they do, but what I am saying is that it is futile to even show enough varifiable evidence of creation to them for it becomes an endless journey.
As a secular humanist ,are you really looking for anything that might prove God's existence.
I mean our world is inundated with humansitic philosophies with much of the world's top leaders, be it gov't or financial guru's and many other professionals,teachers etc. taken on such views and passing such views on down through the general public.
Although many may not assume a title of humanist ,they carry out it's beliefs.

Honestly, if a humanist ever came across such proof that would seal the deal, would that not be the biggest blow to the humanist manifesto,causing it to come crashing down.
I mean, humanists whole presumption that man is the centre of all things ,would prove to be a joke.

Could it be ,that the answer and proof of God's existence is under the noses of some of the most elite professionals,scientists and professors in the world,I mean why would God make himself so hard to find ,that only a select few of highly evolved intellects in the world could figure it all out, prove him and or explain him.

There is a key difference here and that is when YOU search for evidence, you already know what you are looking for (evidence supporting creation), when scientists observe, they have no idea what they are looking for and form their hypothesis AFTER they make the observations.

Ya, that makes sense ,you can't be sure what it is your looking for ,but it seems when they find anything ,their first thoughts are ,how does this or can this discount creation. Again there is alot at stake.

Just look at the whole discovery of Piltdown man and many other of his ancestors and skeleton findings,how man have fabricated, invented, masterminding the whole hoax behind these discoveries,why I ask,well to appear somewhat superior , to look up at God and say ,I told you so, arrogance and pride,I say a wilful attempt and diligent pursuit to be first to debunk ,creation,God etc.
This is their apparent objective ,not that that alarms the Christian community.
We don't sit there thinking,I sure hope they don't discover proof that God does not exist and prove evolution is true.
We don't rely on God's existence because we have proof of creation, we rely on God by observing creation and how it functions, although once we receive Christ His Holy Spirit confirms the rest.Faith comes first ,confirmation

Men have being falsifying discoveries throughout time, but of course they defend themselves and of course .......excuses ! excuses! excuses!!
Paleontologists have discovered a new skeleton in the closet of human ancestry that is likely to force science to revise, if not scrap, current theories of human origins. Reuters reported that the discovery left scientists of human evolution . . . confused, saying, 'Lucy may not even be a direct human ancestor after all.” USA Today, March 21, 2001
Evolutionists have often believed,the oil in the earth could only have been created by mass pressure from the earth on old remains of dinoasaurs over millions of years ,but recently they found that when they have applied intense pressure to sewage it produced usuable oil.

Anyone who makes their hypothesis before looking at the evidence can cherry pick and play with statistics enough to the point where they will go to bed at night comforted in their correctness. It's all very comforting and very convenient, but that doesn't mean it is true.

You see, that is the beauty of God, a person does'nt come to God because they have acquired all emperical evidence.They come because they see their need for God ,
The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God
That is the connumdrum of the secular world view, that God can't be found through something like faith ,it's illogical etc.etc.

If you want real world examples of this just take a look at numerologists, mentalists, faith healers, dowsers, astrologists, or all the people that take Nostradamus's predictions seriously. If science used the methods of these groups, it would not work

You keep looking to science and endless pursuits of acquiring proof of God and we will keep looking to God whom we have already found and whom no one can disprove,because it is a personal expereince that comes through faith in God's word
The Holy Spirit is our deposit and our assurance of what is to come ,

 

[Autodidact]

If your really interested in finding answers to this age old debate, here you go all kinds of answers defending and supporting creation
Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Evolution, Dinosaurs, and the Bible.
Welcome to CEM Online
Creation Evidence
Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Creation/Evolution/Dinosaurs/Genesis/etc Article Database

If you really want to discuss a particular topic ,then let me know, but I can tell you right now ,this is more than likely just going to be an endless journey ,I show you and you show me ,i will attempt one subject to see how it goes ,but I won't invest all my waking hours trying to prove anything to you.
God proves himself to those who are diligently looking ,not to those who are just out to
I can say that if all the evidence did point to favor creation ,I can well imagine that skeptics would find somethingelse to use to debunk or question God and creation, and it would be an endless pursuit of debate .
Jesus never wasted his time proving to his skeptics the fossil records or life in other galaxies.

Believe me, I have spent huge amounts of time at creationist websites. They are all full of lies and inaccuracy, and I'll prove it to you. Pick your favorite--any creationist website of your choice. I will find lies, inaccuracies, mischaracterizations and probably quote mines. I will also find articles by engineers, hydrologists, climate scientists and rarely, if ever, biologists.

The evidence does not point to YEC; it completely disproves it.

Pick any corner of this issue you like. The flood, the age of the earth, how new species arise, origins of humanity, I'll show you how science disproves YEC. The only thing I think I cannot do this with is abiogenesis, because biology hasn't figured that out yet.

And it has nothing to do with God. That's the first thing you need to understand. The Theory of Evolution is NOT the theory that there is no God. God is irrelevant to the issue.

 

[sandandfoam]

You keep looking to science and endless pursuits of acquiring proof of God and we will keep looking to God whom we have already found and whom no one can disprove,because it is a personal expereince that comes through faith in God's word
The Holy Spirit is our deposit and our assurance of what is to come ,

I don't think they should be mutually exclusive, clearly (to me, I think you disagree)
science indicates that creationism provides a flawed conceptual framework in terms of our current scientific knowledge. Is not the logical thing to do to alter the conceptual framework to fit the facts? By a distillation of both the empirical (i.e. science) and conceptual (i.e. philosophical or religious) eventually we might get to the point of an understanding that is robust on both levels?

 

[Valjean]

Creation science is not science. It has nothing to do with science. It has none of the characteristics or qualities of the scientific method.

If you want to believe we were created by magic, fine. But don't try to insert this dogma into serious research on mechanism.

 

[Zeno]

Believers who are scientists do by nature what they are trained in, but name some who profess evolution as their end result.
I said ,skeptics , often look for anything to debunk the creation account ,give them proof of one thing ,they want another, and that is ok , that's what they do, but what I am saying is that it is futile to even show enough varifiable evidence of creation to them for it becomes an endless journey.
As a secular humanist ,are you really looking for anything that might prove God's existence.
I mean our world is inundated with humansitic philosophies with much of the world's top leaders, be it gov't or financial guru's and many other professionals,teachers etc. taken on such views and passing such views on down through the general public.
Although many may not assume a title of humanist ,they carry out it's beliefs.

Honestly, if a humanist ever came across such proof that would seal the deal, would that not be the biggest blow to the humanist manifesto,causing it to come crashing down.
I mean, humanists whole presumption that man is the centre of all things ,would prove to be a joke.

Could it be ,that the answer and proof of God's existence is under the noses of some of the most elite professionals,scientists and professors in the world,I mean why would God make himself so hard to find ,that only a select few of highly evolved intellects in the world could figure it all out, prove him and or explain him.



Ya, that makes sense ,you can't be sure what it is your looking for ,but it seems when they find anything ,their first thoughts are ,how does this or can this discount creation. Again there is alot at stake.

Just look at the whole discovery of Piltdown man and many other of his ancestors and skeleton findings,how man have fabricated, invented, masterminding the whole hoax behind these discoveries,why I ask,well to appear somewhat superior , to look up at God and say ,I told you so, arrogance and pride,I say a wilful attempt and diligent pursuit to be first to debunk ,creation,God etc.
This is their apparent objective ,not that that alarms the Christian community.
We don't sit there thinking,I sure hope they don't discover proof that God does not exist and prove evolution is true.
We don't rely on God's existence because we have proof of creation, we rely on God by observing creation and how it functions, although once we receive Christ His Holy Spirit confirms the rest.Faith comes first ,confirmation

Men have being falsifying discoveries throughout time, but of course they defend themselves and of course .......excuses ! excuses! excuses!!
Paleontologists have discovered a new skeleton in the closet of human ancestry that is likely to force science to revise, if not scrap, current theories of human origins. Reuters reported that the discovery left scientists of human evolution . . . confused, saying, 'Lucy may not even be a direct human ancestor after all.” USA Today, March 21, 2001
Evolutionists have often believed,the oil in the earth could only have been created by mass pressure from the earth on old remains of dinoasaurs over millions of years ,but recently they found that when they have applied intense pressure to sewage it produced usuable oil.




You see, that is the beauty of God, a person does'nt come to God because they have acquired all emperical evidence.They come because they see their need for God ,
The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God
That is the connumdrum of the secular world view, that God can't be found through something like faith ,it's illogical etc.etc.


You keep looking to science and endless pursuits of acquiring proof of God and we will keep looking to God whom we have already found and whom no one can disprove,because it is a personal expereince that comes through faith in God's word
The Holy Spirit is our deposit and our assurance of what is to come ,

All I was saying is that your method of inquiry is no different than a dowser's, or an astrologist's, or a mentalist's. I understand that you might feel truth in your own and be a better person for it. But that does not mean that your feeling of truth is different than a dowser's. I have looked for evidence of God many times, even before I was 'biased.' I used to be a believer. At one point my heart was sincerely open not only to God, but also to a faith in him (the Christian one at least).

The beauty of skeptical inquiry is that it begins without claims. No true skeptic inquires with the intent of looking for evidence against creation. It would uproot the entire mechanism of being a skeptic. I understand you might be frustrated when you feel you have a piece of evidence to show a skeptic and they reject it. You must look carefully at why they are rejecting it. Often it will be because they feel it was not found using good science and better explanations exist. If they are a true skeptic, it should have nothing to do with disproving creation.

If I was shown compelling evidence of creation, it would not be a blow at all to my humanist ideologies. In fact, it would comfort me in that I could be more certain my ideologies are correct. I know hostile atheists exist - I have encountered them myself. But any true skeptic or scientist does not set about to actively look for evidence opposing creation. The hoaxes you speak of are rooted out for one reason: they are bad science. The hoaxes are not a knock against science at all, in fact they show the true power of science and its self-correcting nature. Bad science does not work. Bad science does not produce computers, vaccines, airplanes, etc.

Using observation and evidence has happened to lead me to various personal truths. When I used to have faith, it never guided me to any of these same truths. I harbor no inherent hostility toward someone simply because they are a believer, I only hold hostility to the actions of certain believers (and non-believers). And people's beliefs influence their actions. For example, someone who believer that Christ's return is going to occur in the next 50 years. Well, I am not going to take that person's stance on global warming very seriously because to them it will hardly matter. That person might vote for someone who is not convinced by global warming and then their belief starts to directly affect my life.

When someone looks at science and sees nothing of value, I am greatly disheartened. I find myself thinking "if they could just see it like I do" and I am sure those who only find truth through faith are saying the same thing.

 

[mingmty]

If your really interested in finding answers to this age old debate, here you go all kinds of answers defending and supporting creation
Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Evolution, Dinosaurs, and the Bible.
Welcome to CEM Online
Creation Evidence
Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Creation/Evolution/Dinosaurs/Genesis/etc Article Database

From your missleading articles:

Lack of Transitional Fossils
Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record.

Read:
Tetrapod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sarcopterygii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lack of a Natural Mechanism
However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far.

Read:
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

Time Constraints
Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth.

Read:
The Age of the Earth (Here all the creationist theories in your links are shown to be false, actually using data, unlike in the links you provided)
Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the wikipedia article:

Most geological samples from the Earth are unable to give a direct date of the formation of the Earth from the solar nebula because the Earth has undergone stratification into the core, mantle, and crust, and this has then undergone a long history of mixing and unmixing of these sample reservoirs by plate tectonics, weathering and hydrothermal circulation.

Nevertheless, ancient Archaean lead ores of galena have been used to date the formation of the Earth as these represent the earliest formed lead-only minerals on the planet and record the earliest homogeneous lead-lead isotope systems on the planet. These have returned age dates of 4.54 billion years with a precision of as little as 1% margin for error.[8]

The Canyon Diablo date has been backed up by hundreds of other dates, from both terrestrial samples and other meteorites. The meteorite samples, however, show a spread from 4.53 to 4.58 billion years ago. This is interpreted as the duration of formation of the solar nebula and its collapse into the solar disk to form the Sun and the planets. This 50 million year time span allows for accretion of the planets from the original solar dust and meteorites.

The moon as another extraterrestrial body which has not undergone plate tectonics and which has no atmosphere, provides quite precise age dates from the samples returned from the Apollo missions. Rocks returned from the moon have been dated at a maximum of around 4.4 and 4.5 billion years old. Martian meteorites which have landed upon the Earth, have also been dated to around 4.5 billion years old by lead-lead dating.
Altogether the concordance of age dates of both the earliest terrestrial lead reservoirs and all other reservoirs within the solar system found to date are used to support the hypothesis that the Earth and the rest of the solar system formed at around 4.53 to 4.58 billion years ago.

Unacceptable Model of Origins
However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in "voids" and "clumps," or the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, "where did everything come from?" Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?

This is laughable, the Big Bang theory has its weakness since it is aiming too high, but we are working on it. You call unacceptable the Big Bang so decided to propose that a magical invisible and omnipotent being created all the universe? Don't make me laugh.

Finding this wasn't even difficult, you should try to research by yourself, otherwise you are going to get stuck in ignorance.

 

[sandandfoam]

From your missleading articles:


This is laughable, the Big Bang theory has its weakness since it is aiming too high, but we are working on it. You call unacceptable the Big Bang so decided to propose that a magical invisible and omnipotent being created all the universe? Don't make me laugh.

Question:- I agree that Big Bang although it has weaknessess is generally a good theory. But it also seems to me that it has a similar conceptual problem to creationism i.e. for creationists the problem is who made God, for Big Bang, what caused it? Is there any way around this?

 

[mingmty]

Question:- I agree that Big Bang although it has weaknessess is generally a good theory. But it also seems to me that it has a similar conceptual problem to creationism i.e. for creationists the problem is who made God, for Big Bang, what caused it? Is there any way around this?

There are theories, like about upper dimensions collision or the string theory, but not enough data has been collected to test them. They are waiting for a way to be tested, and one is being constructed in Europe: The Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

By the way, the LHC is amazing, just look at its size: http://cry3-aps.kek.jp/~lhcirq/LHC/drawings/cern_arial.jpg

 

[sandandfoam]

By the way, the LHC is amazing, just look at its size: http://cry3-aps.kek.jp/~lhcirq/LHC/drawings/cern_arial.jpg

WOW that is amazing

 

[Autodidact]

Question:- I agree that Big Bang although it has weaknessess is generally a good theory. But it also seems to me that it has a similar conceptual problem to creationism i.e. for creationists the problem is who made God, for Big Bang, what caused it? Is there any way around this?

Unlike religion, science is able to accept the answer, "We don't know," or "We don't know yet." In many situations, that is the most accurate possible answer.

 

[roli]

This is laughable, the Big Bang theory has its weakness since it is aiming too high, but we are working on it. You call unacceptable the Big Bang so decided to propose that a magical invisible and omnipotent being created all the universe? Don't make me laugh.

Evolution is a laughable hypothesis as well. Especially these so called professionals assuming they know what there talking about regarding different species or animals apparently lived millions of years ago.
Scientists have this amazing ability to piece this muti million year planet together as if it happened yesterday , and there are some who hang off every word of these clowns, now that's cause for a laugh or pity on the dear souls.
It goes something like this,We think we have found the link, we beleive,milions of years ago and we feel they are from this family and that family, alright ,so what proof do we have, none,purely speculation, but we are progressing. LOL!!!
Guessing at best with some experts, but their terminology is breath taking and very sophisticated ,almost convincing ,well to some.
They almost sound as pertictable and reliable as the weather man
The only indication of any poven evolution theory happening here is the findings of the so called professionals changing considerably faster then the apparent evolution process itself .

Finding this wasn't even difficult, you should try to research by yourself, otherwise you are going to get stuck in ignorance

I am impressed, your knowledge and speed are simply, well, I'm lost for words.
I have resources available and can if I choose discuss the endless subjects and so called break throughs ,discoveries etc .
If we were to open up any subject for complete study and research,to prove or disprove evolution / creation we would still be here doing so while we are collecting our pension.
But go ahead I'll give it a try ,select a topic nothing to deep ,any subject we see how it goes.
I think it would be come more of a competition to you than a learning curve

 

[Autodidact]

Evolution is a laughable hypothesis as well. Especially these so called professionals assuming they know what there talking about regarding different species or animals apparently lived millions of years ago.
Scientists have this amazing ability to piece this muti million year planet together as if it happened yesterday , and there are some who hang off every word of these clowns, now that's cause for a laugh or pity on the dear souls.
It goes something like this,We think we have found the link, we beleive,milions of years ago and we feel they are from this family and that family, alright ,so what proof do we have, none,purely speculation, but we are progressing. LOL!!!
Guessing at best with some experts, but their terminology is breath taking and very sophisticated ,almost convincing ,well to some.
They almost sound as pertictable and reliable as the weather man
The only indication of any poven evolution theory happening here is the findings of the so called professionals changing considerably faster then the apparent evolution process itself .



I am impressed, your knowledge and speed are simply, well, I'm lost for words.
I have resources available and can if I choose discuss the endless subjects and so called break throughs ,discoveries etc .
If we were to open up any subject for complete study and research,to prove or disprove evolution / creation we would still be here doing so while we are collecting our pension.
But go ahead I'll give it a try ,select a topic nothing to deep ,any subject we see how it goes.
I think it would be come more of a competition to you than a learning curve

So you are opposed to science in general? You don't think it's a valuable way to learn about the natural world?

O.K., I'll pick...the age of the earth. According to modern geology, the earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old. What say you?

 

[roli]

So you are opposed to science in general? You don't think it's a valuable way to learn about the natural world?

I am not sure what gave you the idea I am opposed to the general study of science in learning about the earth, that presumption alone is preposterous .
I don't however believe with all the scientific knowledge we have, can prove evolution as anything more than a theory,which is all it has ever been and all it will ever be.To speak, of something that they think happened billions of years ago, as if it happened yesterday blows my mind ,it takes more faith for that line of thought than for God

O.K., I'll pick...the age of the earth. According to modern geology, the earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old. What say you]

Alrighty ,what may I say is the postion you take or they take,
One of the primary positions in which they attempt to age the earth up to billions of years is the measurment of the differnt types of decaying rock regarding a method called radiometric dating. Emphasis seems to be on the Mount St Helens eruption and what they discovered.
There is so much info on this subject alone, so many methods ,so many a hypothesis

What say you?

 

[Valjean]

roli, you don't know what a scientific "theory" is, do you?